How high can we get the world population?

@Anzû, now that's going to be an interesting timeline :extremelyhappy: Get everybody high as a kite.

I've discussed how fast a Native American Indian population could recover after a plague in another thread but how about a European population? If the American colonists lost 90% of their population in a plague (let's say in 1700) would we be likely to see the American colonists double their population every 50 years? This would be without any significant immigration as migrating into a recently active plague region won't be too appealing. There would also be no invasions of the colonies while they recover (let's say potential invaders are scared of bringing the plague back home) The Americans would still have infrastructure such as farms or roads survive. Houses would likely exist but they should probably be careful reclaiming those.

Let's be a bit merciful and say that people are still very interested in buying their natural resources (perhaps there's a prevailing belief that makes buyers less concerned about exchanging objects or animals if it's done a certain way). To cut the survivors a little more slack let's say this world has very early adoption of oil (this world may be veering into some wacky tech development) so somebody out there is interested in purchasing oil from the survivors.

Would growth likely be far slower? Perhaps a doubling every century?
 
Last edited:
@desmirelle, how about magic mushrooms spreading across the world's continents?

@metalinvader665, point taken. Those are quite valuable for trading.

Going for a situation where China shows early relative growth and the spread of technological development rapidly grows the rest of the world's population. China hits an upper population limit and the rest of the world catches up number wise so by the time you get to the "modern day" (space exploration beginning, internet, etc.) China has a severely diminished numbers and economy advantage compared to the start of the timeline (Song China). Due to a lack of any extensive and long term colonization the population and economic power of Europeans was significantly decreased as well. Having more people across the world living a higher quality of life, rather than a small amount of elites in a few regions leads to significantly more people having the opportunity to meaningfully contribute to scientific development. This is the reason for the rapid tech development mentioned in another thread.

Song China showed rapid population growth. How high does the population of China get before the government introduces population control measures or the population starts to stabilize?
 
@desmirelle, how about magic mushrooms spreading across the world's continents?

Psilocybin mushrooms are found on every continent aside from Antarctica and grow in almost every climate. But the groups who used mushrooms used them in religious and spiritual contexts, so it isn't something anyone would consider selling and marketing like coffee.

Going for a situation where China shows early relative growth and the spread of technological development rapidly grows the rest of the world's population. China hits an upper population limit and the rest of the world catches up number wise so by the time you get to the "modern day" (space exploration beginning, internet, etc.) China has a severely diminished numbers and economy advantage compared to the start of the timeline (Song China). Due to a lack of any extensive and long term colonization the population and economic power of Europeans was significantly decreased as well. Having more people across the world living a higher quality of life, rather than a small amount of elites in a few regions leads to significantly more people having the opportunity to meaningfully contribute to scientific development. This is the reason for the rapid tech development mentioned in another thread.

Song China showed rapid population growth. How high does the population of China get before the government introduces population control measures or the population starts to stabilize?

Disease, famine, and warfare were all the population control measures you needed before modern times brought relative stability, modern medicine, and much better food distribution networks. But the Chinese population increased during the Ming and especially the Qing, thanks in part to crops from the New World.

China (in early 19th century Qing borders) could probably have 450-500 million, assuming China is stable and prosperous in those years. In Song/Ming era borders, maybe 350-400 million. Once rebellions break out, nomad invasion, famine/plague, then the population will crash back down again.
 
Good points. So what would the population of Europe stabilize around? Around 200 million?

How about Africa? If Africa is completely covered in agricultural societies by 1400 (widespread development starting in the 1300's) and at that time has medicine on par with North Asia could be get the population to 900 million by 1600?

I think 900 million is a bit high. I think that the only problem with that is that the Bantu expansion took too long to reach South-Eastern Africa. If maize (or any other productive crop) is introduced to the Congo Basin around about 1300, this would cause a population explosion, causing the Bantu to spread more aggressively into Africa.

Africa could have cassava, maize, sweet potato and rice traded to them and would undergo similar development. Since some people in this period knew the world was round and maps would exist roughly depicting each region someone may figure out you can go from the Americas to Africa without going through Asia and trade would start flowing directly from the Americas through the west coast of Africa. Uncertain exactly how long this would take to eventuate through, definitely a few centuries. Curious to hear any suggestions, corrections or estimates for how long this may take.

Maybe a POD where Mali becomes a naval power and stumbles across the Americas (I've been thinking about doing that after I finish my current timeline). This could help my previous suggestion materialize.
 
@Anzû, now that's going to be an interesting timeline :extremelyhappy: Get everybody high as a kite.

I've discussed how fast a Native American Indian population could recover after a plague in another thread but how about a European population? If the American colonists lost 90% of their population in a plague (let's say in 1700) would we be likely to see the American colonists double their population every 50 years? This would be without any significant immigration as migrating into a recently active plague region won't be too appealing. There would also be no invasions of the colonies while they recover (let's say potential invaders are scared of bringing the plague back home) The Americans would still have infrastructure such as farms or roads survive. Houses would likely exist but they should probably be careful reclaiming those.

Let's be a bit merciful and say that people are still very interested in buying their natural resources (perhaps there's a prevailing belief that makes buyers less concerned about exchanging objects or animals if it's done a certain way). To cut the survivors a little more slack let's say this world has very early adoption of oil (this world may be veering into some wacky tech development) so somebody out there is interested in purchasing oil from the survivors.

Would growth likely be far slower? Perhaps a doubling every century?

The OTL Quebecois were doubling in population every 30 years without significant immigration so I think a similar situation could be worked out for the American colonists. In fact, I seem to recall that parts of New England experienced the samd sort of explosive population growth without significan immigration.
 
If we have governments in the Americas in the 1700s collapse into a anarchy how hard would it be to conquer? How long until stable governments begin to reappear? Let's give the Americas a 25 fold population boost prior to the scenario.

On one hand a lack of unity and small numbers could make them vulnerable. The fact that invaders have to cross an ocean to get at the Americas could make an attack really difficult. Militias could also make holding territory quite painful. In this situation let's assume that for unstated reasons they will be treated as being a different ethnicity from any invaders. This means that if Britain for example comes for the former 13 colonies, the Americans there will find themselves being treated as if they were Africans, Maori or Aboriginal Australians.
 
If we have governments in the Americas in the 1700s collapse into a anarchy how hard would it be to conquer? How long until stable governments begin to reappear? Let's give the Americas a 25 fold population boost prior to the scenario.

On one hand a lack of unity and small numbers could make them vulnerable. The fact that invaders have to cross an ocean to get at the Americas could make an attack really difficult. Militias could also make holding territory quite painful. In this situation let's assume that for unstated reasons they will be treated as being a different ethnicity from any invaders. This means that if Britain for example comes for the former 13 colonies, the Americans there will find themselves being treated as if they were Africans, Maori or Aboriginal Australians.

Depends. Stable governments could emerge within a few decades, going by Argentina or Uruguay. But even then, Argentina under Rosas would've been difficult to conquer and hold. And a 25 fold population boost would mean the Americas would have far more population than Europe and would be much higher than they were in pre-Colombian times, so "small numbers" is definitely not a problem. Massachusetts alone would have a significant fraction of the population of the British Isles if you did that.

And there's no way in hell they'd treat white Christians who spoke the same language as them the same way they treated conquered colonial peoples, even if some groups in the Thirteen Colonies like the Puritans or Quakers didn't get along with the Church of England at times, and even the Catholics wouldn't have been treated as bad. And remember, Africans, Maori, and Australian Aboriginals were treated differently under British rule.
 
@metalinvader665 it's a big population but it's also spread over the enormous area of North America and are not unified. What if we remove the 25 fold boost and just go with OTL population levels.

What about if we make the people being invaded a previous wave of colonists including Africans, Asians etc?
 
@metalinvader665, just need a global hippie movement and everyone's getting pretty high on those mushrooms :) All this talk of a super high world reminds me of this film.

Thanks for the population numbers. How high does China get in the 2000's?

@telynk, good to know. Was the medicine in the American colonies in the 1700s significantly worse than that in Britain?

If the population of the Americas suddenly drops due to disease like OTL during the alternate 1400's how long would it likely take for the Europeans to react and start moving in on the region? On one hand, organizing an invasion across the Atlantic Ocean would take some serious preparation and attacking a civilization of gun wielding Americans might slip beneath other priorities in 1400's Europe. On the other hand there are foreign ships continually moving through the region so people worldwide would know what was going on there.

The political situation is a bit different in the alternate 1400s. The Byzantine Empire while weakened still persists in a diminished fashion but is transitioning into an early adopter of gunpowder in the same vein as the OTL Ottomans. The middle east has not suffered the destruction of the Mongols (how this relates to its interaction with Europe is up to you). The Ottoman Empire never exists. The Kievan Rus' has not reunified and Russia has not come to be as of the early 1500s. Britain never becomes Protestant. Europe is part of a global trade network and does not need to explore. Maps already exist showing most of the world and ships laden with spices dock in ports throughout Europe so the Europeans don't necessarily need to voyage out to get them. Britain never develops an obsession with tea and it never becomes a national drink.

Note: The second paragraph is a different timeline.
 
Last edited:
How powerful could Australia be if it leveraged as much of its land for agriculture and population as was safe for the nation? Due to a timeline quirk the entire nation including the North and West is as heavily populated as can be sustained, with its population further supplemented by trade such as is the case with Singapore and Japan. How large could the population get?

Alternate Australia later on relies on extensive solar panel farms to power massive amounts of desalination plants and enacts Singapore esque water saving measures. Now that water is now much more plentiful, how high can the population get?
 
How powerful could Australia be if it leveraged as much of its land for agriculture and population as was safe for the nation? Due to a timeline quirk the entire nation including the North and West is as heavily populated as can be sustained, with its population further supplemented by trade such as is the case with Singapore and Japan. How large could the population get?

Alternate Australia later on relies on extensive solar panel farms to power massive amounts of desalination plants and enacts Singapore esque water saving measures. Now that water is now much more plentiful, how high can the population get?

Depends on the technology level we're talking about. The next generation of solar power will be much more efficient than today's, and desalination is advancing as well. In theory, Australia could house hundreds of millions of people (probably the population of the US is feasible) and produce most, if not all, of the food to feed them all if you had the energy available to power desalination. Which Australia does, the problem is it's very expensive to build all those solar power plants and desalination facilities, plus all the new infrastructure to use them. Nuclear power is better, as always, and Australia is rich in uranium and thorium.
 
You could probably fit a lot more people into Australia. Northern Australia, for example, has a similar climate to western India, but has very few people.
 
Top